Pages

Saturday, November 06, 2010

Self-fulfilling effrontery

“I used to be a pastor in my evangelical days. I also have been an elder in evangelical reformed, PCA, and PCUSA churches of various sorts on and off for over 25 years. Never, never, never in all that time have I seen or heard anybody, pastor, elder, or layperson, make comments about a deceased person as obnoxious as your comment about Ken Pulliam.”

http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2010/11/intervention.html

This was directed at Alan, not me. But since I’ve been linked to this controversy, I’ll make the following observation:

1. On the one hand, I do think we should always consider the effect our words will have on others when we write or speak for public consumption.

2. On the other hand, there’s an obvious risk of self-fulfilling effrontery in this objection. I see no reason to assume that Pulliam’s family, especially his Christian relatives, were in the habit of reading his blasphemous blog. Why would they subject themselves to that kind of abuse?

When, however, irate critics of Alan put his brief comment in neon lights, doesn’t that make it far more likely that Pulliam’s relatives will become aware of the comment? If the comment is, indeed, offensive, and you draw public attention to the offensive comment on various blogs, then, of course, his relatives, who might otherwise remain blissfully ignorant of the (allegedly) offensive comment, are far more likely to be offended by it–since they are far more likely to be apprised of the comment by reading irate critics constantly express their (alleged) disapproval.

And this, in turn, raises the question of sincerity. If they were really concerned about the feelings of his loved ones, why would they go out of their way to advertise a comment which, by their own admission (or assertion), is hurtful to the feelings of his loved ones? Wouldn’t discretion compel them to pass over the offending remark in silence? They accuse Alan of being tactless, but isn’t their own conduct tactless?

So, frankly, it looks as if they are taking advantage of the family to score points against Alan.

33 comments:

And this, in turn, raises the question of sincerity. If they were really concerned about the feelings of his loved ones, why would they go out of their way to advertise a comment which, by their own admission (or assertion), is hurtful to the feelings of his loved ones? Wouldn’t discretion compel them to pass over the offending remark in silence? They accuse Alan of being tactless, but isn’t their own conduct tactless?

So, frankly, it looks as if they are taking advantage of the family to score points against Alan.

Well said. From what I've observed, it seems like most of Alan's detractors are much more interested in venting their own disapprobation than truly taking the feelings of the Pulliam family into account.

Well said. From what I've observed, it seems like most of Alan's detractors are much more interested in venting their own disapprobation than truly taking the feelings of the Pulliam family into account.

Which points us back to Steve's (and Rho's) much maligned observations of the inconsistency, irrationality, and hypocrisy of the collective anti-theist worldview.

When considering life their bluster sounds like this:

" ”the universe doesn’t owe us comfort, and the fact that a belief is comforting doesn’t make it true. And if it’s true that this reality causes people to feel despair, that’s tough. It’s still the truth. The universe doesn’t owe us condolence or consolation; it doesn’t owe us a nice warm feeling inside. If it’s true, it’s true, and you’d better live with it."

But when the great equalizer death comes along and snuffs out one of their own - well that hits uncomfortably close to home - and they begin emoting; and when a critic points out their inconsistency, irrationality, and hypocrisy - well that hits uncomfortably close to home too, and they begin emoting in quite a different manner.

The amazing part is that they seem uniformly oblivious to the fact that they not only don't, but can't live out their own professed worldview in "real life".

Now don't get me wrong on this point, I'm very thankful for God's common grace which restrains the great mass of your typical irrational, inconsistent, hyopcritical anti-theist because those who by God's mysterious providence are allowed to follow their professed worldviews rationally and consistently earn a very dubious societal distinction - they're known as sociopaths.

Coram Deo said... Well said. From what I've observed, it seems like most of Alan's detractors are much more interested in venting their own disapprobation than truly taking the feelings of the Pulliam family into account.

Which points us back to Steve's (and Rho's) much maligned observations of the inconsistency, irrationality, and hypocrisy of the collective anti-theist worldview.

Hello Coram Deo .You forget it is not only Kens family who might be offended.It is friends and followers of Kens blog some of them Christian also ,who actually were offended.

Here you are on Triablodue seeming a little offended at others being offended.Coram Deo is it only those on Triablogue, that are allowed to be offended?.

Coram Deo do you not feel this is inconsistant at all?.Is it rational?.Are you sure its not even in the slightest bit hypocritical?.

Can you honestly say it is absolutely totally void of all anti agnostic atheist worldview?.

So, frankly, it looks as if they are taking advantage of the family to score points against Alan.

Again thats your opinion Steve.An opinion which dismisses the feelings of friends and blog followers of Ken.Even though its not written on Kens blog ,it is known that at least one blog follower of Kens who over time had also came to feel she felt Ken was also such a very kind and good friend.That upon his death she felt extremely sad and was indeed in such great distress she was crying.

Since becoming a friend of Ken she had always made sure to have visited Kens blog each and every single day.

Steve you try to trivialize the feelings of offense caused by somebody not able to even offer a simple apology ,that might have gone a long way to help save this coming to what it now has.Instead you far prefered to defend somebody who couldnt even find it in his own heart to offer a simple apology.An apology of which wouldnt hurt anything much, other than a little of his own pride.

It could be also suggested that maybe it is indeed you that is simply trying to take advantage of the agnostics atheists and other Christians feelings of being offended about this treatment of Ken.

By trying to suggest they could never ever have cared so much or honestly been offended.Maybe its even an obvious risk of self-fulfilling effrontery of your own, in your objection to likelihood of some of Kens friends and blog followers being offended and worried that some of Kens family might indeed be a little offended too.

Steve i really dont understand at all why you seem to find this so hard to comprehend.I think a previous comment from another person named Dean Dough on the other previous thread named Godless gaffe puts it most succinctly.When Dean Dough said your conduct in this matter is troublesome.

Sadly i cant help agreeing with the man.Your conduct is indeed troublesome.Tou have seemed to be continually hot headed and easy to anger, and have been often happy of being personally abusive, by calling some people who happen to disagree with you as being thick,ignorant,unintelligent and as being into sexist stereotyping

On top of that you also try demanding they have no way to have any standards, in effect seeming to be also quite happy of demoting them as being some type of lessor being in your mind.

I find this so hard to see as being anything charitable or generous , unless your sense of being generous is about handing out abuse, and lacking in enough charity to understand that some of Kens friends might have indeed honestly felt so much about him,that they honestly did get offended by Rhoblogy attitude.Whether his attitude was intended or not.

Taniwha: If you are still interested, I reproduce here the response to your question(s) UNDER THE PREVIOUS THREAD.

Both threads being related.

11/04/2010 10:42 PM Taniwha said: GREV said: Luke 13:1-9

Sorry GREV i still fail to see where this connects to offending the grieving friends of the dead.

GREV im wondering out of interest. If you had offended friends of a recently dead person whos blood hard hardly had the time to cool. Would it still be totally beyound you to simply apologize for offending, even if you still felt only this abrupt sense of pity for them.

11/04/2010 11:03 PM "

Hello:

Well it is nice to know that I am not the only old person on this site.

Would I offer comfort and care to a person regardless of their beliefs?

The answer is Yes.

Be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove is a favourite saying of mine. The direct citation from the Gospels escapes me at this moment.

Wisdom dictates that I be present with people and be open to where they are and the questions they have.

Wisdom dictates that I speak to and relate to a person on the level where they are.

So ... if a person wants to discuss hard issues we shall discuss the hard issues. If they wish to numb and discuss nothing I can talk about the Evil Empire with the best of them. Evil Empire should be recognized I hope as a label for the New York Yankees.

Wisdom dictates that a soft answer turns away wrath.

My reference to Luke 13 concerns those who want to discuss hard issues like where is God when tragedy strikes. Well, God in that passage gave an interesting answer.

Certainly, I find it easy to render an apology to someone when words spoken have been received as harsh.

I neither feel an apology detracts from what I believe. It rather calls to mind a choice. When a reed is bruised it is said Messiah will not break that reed.

I am called to be His follower so my choice is clear.

Likewise, when someone violently opposes the gospel, wisdom dictates to move onto other things. God is the one who saves I cannot.

Let me add this. With someone who violently opposes the gospel, I shall speak clearly regarding what I believe but I will not engage in fruitless back and forth if I can help it.

Do I always succeed? Yes and No. More Yes then No now, but still the struggle remains.

The question Steve and Rho have raised, without answer I might add, is why an anti-theist would express such outrage to an expression of pity from a Christian over the eternal state of a lost man's soul, when from the anti-theist worldview he was just an animated sack of meat, a gene replication machine?

You assert that the outrage and secondary offense is for his family and friends who have been left behind by his untimely demise.

But why not be consistent, and simply announce matter of factly to them: "the universe doesn’t owe us comfort, and the fact that a belief is comforting doesn’t make it true. And if it’s true that this reality causes people to feel despair, that’s tough. It’s still the truth. The universe doesn’t owe us condolence or consolation; it doesn’t owe us a nice warm feeling inside. If it’s true, it’s true, and you’d better live with it."

From whence is all the sudden emoting?

I'm not offended at the offense of anti-theists; in fact it makes me rather optimistic that there's yet hope that they might not have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness to such an exent that their consciences have become seared. With God all things are possible (Matthew 19:26).

I am not an anti-agnostic, or anti-atheist, I'm pro-Gospel.

Would you say that you're born-again Taniwha? Did you know that you must be born-again?

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” - John 3:3

Did you know that apart from Christ you are a slave to sin, and that no sinner can ever have eternal life, but will inherit eternal condemnation instead?

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. - John 3:18

No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. 1 John 2:23

Did you know that as a slave to sin you will always and everywhere choose to sin freely and consciously because you love sin?

Did you know that the One true and living God will destroy wicked sinners, like you, with unspeakable, eternal, unending, conscious torments?

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” - Revelation 21:8

This is the bad news, but there's also Good News. Did you know that Jesus Christ can set you free from your death sentence, because He bore the punishment of all those who would believe in Him when he suffered and died on the cross, and that He proved Himself to be the Savior and Son of God when He rose again on the third day?

25 At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

Repent, turn away from your sins and from your pride and turn to Christ for forgiveness of your sins.

Go to Him as a little child with no merit, nothing to offer, and in complete dependance on His free offer of grace to all those whom He chooses to reveal Himself, and you will find rest for your soul.

You can't stand before Him and tell Him no one ever told you, because now you've heard the truth, His truth.

“Hello Steve. Are you stating you would never read whats been written on the blogs of agnostics or atheists ?”

Are you now admitting that Pulliam’s family are so thick-skinned that they wouldn’t be offended by his blog? If so, why would they be offended by Alan’s comment, but not by Pulliam’s aspersions against the Christian faith?

“Again thats your opinion Steve.”

Again, that’s your opinion of my opinion.

“An opinion which dismisses the feelings of friends and blog followers of Ken.”

i) Your opinion of their opinion of my opinion.

ii) If we dismiss their opinion, they dismiss our opinion.

iii) Unlike you, moreover, I gave a supporting argument for my “opinion.” If they really care about the feelings of his family, why do they constantly draw attention to a comment which they assure us would be offensive to the family?

So clearly they don’t care about the feelings of his family. Rather, they use his family as a human shield to hide behind as they fire on Alan.

“Even though its not written on Kens blog ,it is known that at least one blog follower of Kens who over time had also came to feel she felt Ken was also such a very kind and good friend.That upon his death she felt extremely sad and was indeed in such great distress she was crying.”

That’s part of her blind programming. Even robotic vehicles can cry.

“Steve you try to trivialize the feelings of offense caused by somebody…”

One survival machine offending the feelings of another survival machine.

“Instead you far prefered to defend somebody who couldnt even find it in his own heart to offer a simple apology…”

Robotic vehicles can be pretty heartless. I guess that’s not in his programming.

“It could be also suggested that maybe it is indeed you that is simply trying to take advantage of the agnostics atheists and other Christians feelings of being offended about this treatment of Ken.”

That’s just your opinion of my opinion of their opinion of Alan’s opinion.

And what about Christians who might be offended by Pulliam’s blog?

“By trying to suggest they could never ever have cared so much or honestly been offended.Maybe its even an obvious risk of self-fulfilling effrontery of your own, in your objection to likelihood of some of Kens friends and blog followers being offended and worried that some of Kens family might indeed be a little offended too.”

If they were so worried, why did they go out of their way to hype and highlight and repeat and broadcast and amplify the (allegedly) offensive comment?

“When Dean Dough said your conduct in this matter is troublesome. Sadly i cant help agreeing with the man.”

Of course, he’s an apostate minister, just like Pulliam. So that comes as no surprise.

“On top of that you also try demanding they have no way to have any standards, in effect seeming to be also quite happy of demoting them as being some type of lessor being in your mind.”

Actually, that would be Darwinian atheists. They demote human beings to some type of lesser being, namely: blindly-programmed robotic survival machines. Or, as Dawkins has also said, a colony of bacteria.

"How was KP different than the several billion other people in the world who verbally or in writing or in the way the live reject Christianity as the only truth, including Jews?

Would you find it distasteful if someone went to some memorial site of a dead rabbi and stated that they "pitied" him and quoted John 3:18-19?

What's the difference?

11/07/2010 5:27 AM"

You ask what is the difference?

Presently I am conducting a study on Romans 12 with some members of the two churches that I am privileged to serve.

I think of the following in response to your question:

Rom 12:14 Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse.

Matt 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you,

1Cor 4:12 We do hard work, toiling with our own hands. When we are verbally abused, we respond with a blessing, when persecuted, we endure,

And on it could go.

What's the point?

I think some of the following.

I will always witness to the truth. Jesus said do not cast your pearls before swine. So what use is a conversation when everything gets trampled?

I have grown to believe this idea. Right wring fundamentalists on either side of the debate are people that I do not engage long in conversation anymore. When they abuse I try to cheerfully sign off and continue on my way with the expressed sentiment if someone wishes to be civil we can talk.

When Jesus intervened in a death situation it was to show the power of God. How does doing what you are suggesting show the power of God?

Jesus responded in this section in John, in response as part of a conversation. Just going someplace to fire off Bible verses seems to not be a conversation but the expressed intent to just get something off our chest.

What does that help? Or who? And how does it accomplish the task of being a witness?

Mr Fosi writes: "I'm still waiting to see a justification for the moral outrage and comments about being 'distasteful'"

The outrage comes, I think, because most of us doubt that this is anything to do with "defending God's honor". You make it sound as if Jesus - the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe - is relying on you all to taunt the dead for all to see.

It comes across as people doing it to gain personal satisfaction out of inflicting pain on others. What other possible reason is there here?

If sadism is your shtick, hey, whatever floats your boat. You might consider finding a willing party, though. Society in general will cease to function if we let sadists and bullies run the world, though.

Grev, you basically addressed my point. There's a difference between doing something to gain a personal sense of satisfaction and expressing one's beliefs.

Many Christians avoid talking about Hell at all. When others do talk about it, they can do it with a sense of urgency and compassion. On the other hand, there are others who enjoy talking about because they want the attention.

steve said: Why do atheists pen books attacking dead Bible writers? Is it to gain personal satisfaction by inflicting pain on others? What other possible reason is there?

Hello Steve.I do think mostly non believer pen books attacking dead bible readers beliefs, i cant see why they would bother often attacking the dead bible writers themselves, specially when non believers think dead people most often are simply dead people.Its not like an atheist is likely to say, wait until you die, that will teach you a lesson Mr Bible Writer.

Atheism belief is not anything about the personal satisfaction of being able of inflicting pain on others.Mostly faith deals with those ideas and ways of inflicting pain on people specially in a afterlife they believe exists.

James said... Grev, you basically addressed my point. There's a difference between doing something to gain a personal sense of satisfaction and expressing one's beliefs.

Many Christians avoid talking about Hell at all. When others do talk about it, they can do it with a sense of urgency and compassion. On the other hand, there are others who enjoy talking about because they want the attention.

I think we know the difference when we see it.

Hello James.Yes i do agree with you. Hearing a sense of compassion coming through also in the words being used, can help make all the difference in the world.And a simple apology when offense is been made even if offense wasnt intended, specially in times of grief,can be worth a million words and help express that there was honestly no personal intent of any malice in what had been said.

Of course that depends a lot on whether the person finds apology easy or hard.

ἐκκλησία hello .Thats the special breed excuse right?.To me your excuse seems illogical.Most Christians all justify and defend their faith thats why they are become believers.Babies dont arrive on the scene pre programmed as Christians,Islamists or Hindu or Buddhist or anything else.And once converted faithful will justify their chosen faiths.

A faith believer is a type of apologist.They are among atheists in this world unless they shut themselves away inside closed doors or live within the confines of a compound.

The question Steve and Rho have raised, without answer I might add, is why an anti-theist would express such outrage to an expression of pity from a Christian over the eternal state of a lost man's soul, when from the anti-theist worldview he was just an animated sack of meat, a gene replication machine?

Hello Coram Deo.But friend sadly you are misled and confused by some ancient propaganda, that is both unfounded and wrong and in all honesty amounts to little more than misunderstanding and rudeness carried over, from times when faithful set out to persecute any of those human who were not involved in being faithful along with followers of faiths.

Whats more it seems maybe you accuse everyone whos a non believer as being anti-theist?.And in doing that my friend, on its own, could tend to promote some anti-theism.

Is that what you were hoping to acheive?.And upon your acheiving it, would you then falsely get involved in trying to be also claiming your own persecution?.

You sure do show you are being consistant in trying to offend by your unfounded suggestion than non believers have no foundation to base standards upon.

And to be honest Coram Deo that sounds kind of extremely ironic indeed, coming from a faithful person like you claiming these exclusive rights to make claim to foundations of morality ,when by your very own action of being focused on trying to offend non believers, by endlessly suggesting they have no foundation for morality.

It totally exposes you own claim of having a foundation of morality, into being what it is, an extreme farce and complete total mockery.

You hoped to acheive that?

Did you not stop to considder that for a minute or two Coram Deo?.Were you simply just far to continually busy otherwise occupied trying to be the one doing all the offending?.

To stop long enough to considder the implication of claiming a foundation of morality,that your offending would soon expose that you obviously never honestly ever had?.

Isnt it funny how some people seem so totally intent on endlessly digging their own hole bigger and bigger.

Steve asks the question, why some would subject themselves to that type of abuse (referring to Ken's family/friends who may be Christians)..

You replied with a question, does that suggest Steve himself avoids atheistic sites where abuse is dished out.

I replied with the notion, an apologist is a special breed immune to abuse .... (thus explaining why Steve could ask the question he did and still be consistent in visiting atheistic sites where abuse is dished out).

To this point, there was coherence in the thinking.

You accuse me of making special excuses?!

Here the logic goes further off the rails: Are you denying Steve is an apologist? Are you denying apologists 'seem' immune to abuse? Are you suggesting Ken's family are apologists?

By the way, are you implying that if the Bible said it was morally good to kill the elderly and rape toddlers, you'd be obliged to do it because you feel your own internal moral compass is irrelevant or unreliable?

James said:---By the way, are you implying that if the Bible said it was morally good to kill the elderly and rape toddlers, you'd be obliged to do it because you feel your own internal moral compass is irrelevant or unreliable?---

Since the Bible *DOESN'T* say that, how 'bout we stick with the fact that you can't defend your own morality.

BTW, for others, James is quite adept at forgetting the reason that his counter-example is so horrific is precisely *BECAUSE* God condemns it. And James, lacking an ability to mount an argument for his own, tries to steal the moral issue by piggy-backing on Christianity. The simple fact is that if God really did consider raping toddlers and killing the elderly to be a good thing, then our moral intuitions would say that this behavior is a good thing--and James would be arguing, "If the Bible said it was wrong, would you go with the Bible or your own moral intuitions."

In short, the reason we have any moral intuitions is because of God to begin with. James can't ignore that and just assert his morality, although he likes to think he can.

This is the point where James bolts. He never answers any questions. But have no fear. He'll be back next week with the same objections he's already been refuted on, still refusing to answer questions in return.

It's like watching a dog return to its vomit, to quote a famous proverb....